iscover
The federal government’s Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme should be limited to airports with over one million annual passengers, the peak body for airports has suggested.
In the Australian Airports Association’s (AAA) submission to the government’s consultation paper, AAA head of policy and advocacy Natalie Heazlewood also warned that the scheme could see its costs passed on to consumers.
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
“It is important to consider how aviation companies will recover the costs of funding the scheme. Airlines might pass these costs to customers through ticket prices, while airports, lacking a direct customer relationship, will likely recover the costs through fees charged to airlines,” she wrote.
“It is likely that the majority of the complaints will not relate to airports, and the proportioned costs related to funding the scheme should be allocated accordingly.
“A continual review of complaints received will ensure that funding of the scheme is appropriately assigned, if airlines or government agencies receive higher complaints they should pay more.”
Announced in the Aviation White Paper in August, the ombudsman will be brought in to deliver “accessible, independent, fair and accountable” dispute resolution, as well as direct airlines and airports on consumer remedies; issue guidance on obligations to customers; report on airline and airport conduct, and refer misconduct in the sector for investigation under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The AAA argues that imposing the scheme on regional and rural airports would prove an onerous burden and that consumer complaints at these sites would be best dealt with under Australian consumer law. In its submission, the peak body said airports with over 1 million annual passengers make up more than 90 per cent of air travellers.
According to Heazlewood, it is important that the scheme “is realistic and ensures consumers get full and timely airfare refunds”.
“Many smaller regional and rural airports often operate at a loss and are still dealing with the fallout of the Rex Airlines financial collapse. Smaller Australian airports should be exempt from the scheme to help safeguard their current survival, while passengers would still be covered by Australian Consumer Law,” she said in a press release.
“Federal agencies, including Airservices Australia, form part of a passenger’s journey and can influence flight delays and cancellations. Last financial year, only one per cent of these delays were caused by airports in Australia, and airline refund requests remain the top complaint received by the current Airline Consumer Advocate.
“The AAA has long called for an industry ombuds scheme to operate independently in the Australian market. It is also essential that any scheme does not have an adverse impact through higher airfares and greater operational costs for both airports and airlines.”
Announcing the scheme earlier this year, Transport Minister Catherine King said the industry-funded Airline Customer Advocate (ACA), widely considered ineffectual in addressing consumer complaints and refund requests, “hasn’t made enough progress” in fixing these issues.
“Too many Australians have been left out to dry when flights are cancelled or disrupted and it’s impossibly complex to get a refund or even contact a company representative,” she said.
“Customers deserve to get their money back if they are owed it. Full stop.
“It is time to take strong action to protect consumer rights with an Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme and Charter of Customer Rights.”
